Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010011472026 2026:GAU-AS:8275 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/669/2026 BIMAN GOGOI SON OF LATE LAKESWAR GOGOI, VILL- BHAKAT GAON, P.O. AND P.S. MATHURAPUR, DIST- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHARAIDEO P.O. AND P.S. SONARI DIST.- CAHARAIDEO PIN- 785690 ASSAM 4:THE PRESIDENT CHARAIDEO ZILLA PPARISHAD P.O. AND P.S. SOONARI DIIST- CAHARAIDEO PIN- 785690 ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHARAIDEO ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. AND P.S. - SONARI DIST- CAHARAIDEO PIN- 785690 ASSAM 6:LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O.- LAKUWA P.S.- MATHURAPUR DIST- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785689 ASSAM 7:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER LAKUWA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O.- LAKUWA P.S.- MATHURAPUR DIST- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785689 ASSAM 8:MRIGEN GOGOI SON OF LATE PUNAKANTA GOGOI RESIDENT OF MATHURAPUR BHAKAT GAON P.O. AND P.S.- MATHURAPUR DIST.- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785689 ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Khanikar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Bokolial, Govt. Advocate Ms. N. Borah, Standing Counsel Ms. R. Gogoi, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 Page No.# 3/5 Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. N. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7. Ms. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 8. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. This is the second round of litigation in respect to the settlement of Mathurapur Weekly Bazar, which was initially settled in favour of the petitioner. However, upon a challenge being made by the respondent No. 8 to the petitioner's settlement in WP(C) No. 4664/2025, and the said challenge having succeeded, the settlement granted to the petitioner was interfered with by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4664/2025. Thereupon, the respondent No. 8 was granted the settlement of the said Mathurapur Weekly Bazar vide order dated 17.10.2025. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said settlement made in favour of the respondent No. 8 on the ground that the guarantor had submitted a false affidavit stating that he was in possession of land admeasuring 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas covered by PP No. 186 of Dag Nos. 89, 430, 689 and 758 Page No.# 4/5 situated at Bhakat Gaon under Silakuti Mouza in the district of Charaideo. 4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the owner of the said land was one Kanak Rajkonwar, who expired on 30.05.2025, and that as on the date on which the guarantor executed the affidavit, the said Sri Kanak Rajkonwar was no longer alive. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there exists another affidavit executed by Kanak Rajkonwar on 24.06.2025. According to the petitioner, the said affidavit is fraudulent inasmuch as Kanak Rajkonwar could not have executed the same, having expired on 30.05.2025. 6. This Court has duly perused the materials on record as well as the Notice Inviting Tender. From the Notice Inviting Tender, it appears as to what documents were required to be submitted by the tenderer and the guarantor. The affidavit referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as having been executed by Kanak Rajkonwar had no material significance for the purpose of the settlement in question. 7. Apart from that, the affidavit submitted by the guarantor, Sri Tarun Rajkonwar was stating that he was the possessor of the plot of land and did not claim ownership. Page No.# 5/5 8. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, for which, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant